Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Also, there is an excellent account (way prior to his death) of Ray Wallace in Robert Michael Pyle's "Where Bigfoot Walks" that should erase any doubt in anyone's mind about anything Wallace was ever involved in.

(ETA: I may be going out on a limb here, but it looks like a bloke in a gorilla suit to me.)

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232Ezekiel 23:20

And where would an orca hide anyway? It's not like they can just dive underwater or something.

I'm pretty sure one of the footers on this very forum said that there were no good photographs of Bigfoot because they are only visible for "a second or so." Crimeny. That's more air time than a sea lion will give you.

Are you sure that's not Nessie or Champ? I mean, you might have forgotten that you took that picture in Scotland. Nessie has that effect on some people.

BTW Bill Munns was on Coast to Coast tonight and he is STILL BUTTHURT about that spanking we gave him so many years ago. He gave us a shout-out for being closed-minded skeptic meanies. I got quite a few chuckles out of it.

Are you sure that's not Nessie or Champ? I mean, you might have forgotten that you took that picture in Scotland. Nessie has that effect on some people.

Nah, haven't been to Scotland. That was Kangaroo Island, in Australia.

Granted, it's not a razor-sharp image but it's identifiably a sea lion, and not, say, a seal (although that is a matter of a pinniped). Also, note that the bottom fin is sharper than the upper fin, because the animal is turning and you get speed blurring on the fastest moving parts of the animal. I've never noticed that effect on a Bigfoot picture, which mostly just seem to be out of focus.

__________________>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.

What a crock. Just because this particular attempt has a few differences doesn't mean they "can't recreate it". The PGF is a ridiculous joke.

The worst part is the ludicrous discrepancies between what the PGF implies and what the campfire stories imply.

On the one hand we have a monster of incredible size and strengths, capable of bounds of 60 feet, effortless pig tossing, supernatural stealth and virtual invisibility, barring the odd blurry glimpse; never seen long enough to take a decent picture; leaving no scat or hair, no decent tracks, no dead bodies, etc.

On the other hand, we have a film, shot by a man on his first attempt with a rented camera, of a sasquaw casually strolling along, with no apparent apprehension of the dude filming. "She" turns around, has a look, and moseys on like nothing weird is happening.

This suggests a clear choice between gaming and stupid gullibility on the part of the bleevers. Not much wiggle room there.

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.

You've been shown time and again that equal, if not better monkey suits pre-date the pattysuit by decades. Your refusal to acknowledge that is intellectually dishonest, but par for the course.

At any rate, there is no monkey to match that monkeysuit movie in the Bluff Creek ecosystem, in the natural history of North America, or in the fossil record of North America. In other words, what many footers consider he best evidence for footie, the pgf, is just another campfire story that the world passed by nearly fifty years ago. Another footer fail I'm afraid.

You've been shown time and again that equal, if not better monkey suits pre-date the pattysuit by decades. Your refusal to acknowledge that is intellectually dishonest, but par for the course.

I've seen nearly every suit that's ever been discussed here and it's clear to me that Patty isn't a suit.

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

On the one hand we have a monster of incredible size and strengths, capable of bounds of 60 feet, effortless pig tossing, supernatural stealth and virtual invisibility, barring the odd blurry glimpse; never seen long enough to take a decent picture; leaving no scat or hair, no decent tracks, no dead bodies, etc.

Out of thousands of reports, you cherry-pick the ones that are hard to believe. If you take the time to read what Bigfoot reports are usually like, you'll see that they're actually much less eventful than the PGF.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

If only we could have seen Patty that well...

Some of the frames I've posted have been pretty close. I've noticed that the clearer the quality is, the more real she looks.

Out of thousands of reports, you cherry-pick the ones that are hard to believe. If you take the time to read what Bigfoot reports are usually like, you'll see that they're actually much less eventful than the PGF.

Out of thousands of reports, you cherry-pick the ones that are hard to believe. If you take the time to read what Bigfoot reports are usually like, you'll see that they're actually much less eventful than the PGF.

No. The majority of the reports are of quick glimpses, supposedly because they are so elusive. And you have to pick and choose reports. Otherwise you can't decide on their attributes, given the wide range. Are they six foot tall? Are they nine or ten feet tall? Can they or can they not jump sixty feet? Make up your mind.

If the majority of bigfeet behave like Patty, then they should be easily filmed at virtually any time. If you can rent a camera and find one on your first time out, then they are not so fast, or stealthy.

If they behave more like uber-elusive alien hybrid creature from the stories, then the PGF makes no sense. Seriously. The film and the stories don't jive.

If they existed, they would either be like the thing in the PGF, or like the thing in the campfire stories. They clearly can't be both.

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

No. The majority of the reports are of quick glimpses, supposedly because they are so elusive. And you have to pick and choose reports. Otherwise you can't decide on their attributes, given the wide range. Are they six foot tall? Are they nine or ten feet tall? Can they or can they not jump sixty feet? Make up your mind.

Height varies from individual to individual. When it comes to jumping ability, there's not enough data on jumps to say for certain. There's only a few reports that mention something like Bigfoot jumping.

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

If the majority of bigfeet behave like Patty, then they should be easily filmed at virtually any time. If you can rent a camera and find one on your first time out, then they are not so fast, or stealthy.

Freak incidents in nature happen. One shouldn't cherry pick those as a way to discredit what happens 95% of the time.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. It doesn't mean that the interpretation is wrong.

If the interpretation is not wrong, then there's no need to bring up confirmation bias. An interpretation is correct if it follows the evidence. Confirmation bias comes into play when interpretation ignores relevant evidence.

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

Height varies from individual to individual. When it comes to jumping ability, there's not enough data on jumps to say for certain. There's only a few reports that mention something like Bigfoot jumping.

GiGo. "Reports" are useless and summarily dismissed

Quote:

Freak incidents in nature happen. One shouldn't cherry pick those as a way to discredit what happens 95% of the time.

There is no way to discern what is what is not credible in a bigfoot "report." They are useless, and summarily dismissed.

Height varies from individual to individual. When it comes to jumping ability, there's not enough data on jumps to say for certain. There's only a few reports that mention something like Bigfoot jumping.

Freak incidents in nature happen. One shouldn't cherry pick those as a way to discredit what happens 95% of the time.

Well, what does happen 95% of the time? Are they stealthy, near-invisible creatures, or are they easy to film on your first day out? Are they uber-apprehensive, or do they stroll along unperturbed by a jackass with a camera?

Jumping 60 feet is not a freak incident that just happens. If it happens once, that means they can do such a thing.

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

Well, what does happen 90% of the time? Are they stealthy, near-invisible creatures, or are they easy to film on your first day out? Are they uber-apprehensive, or do they stroll along unperturbed by a jackass with a camera?

They're intelligent, paranoid and extremely stealthy, but not invisible. Clear and up close sightings are extremely rare and 99% of the time they happen inside a forest and don't allow for people to get any kind of good footage. It usually happens very quickly and witnesses with no experience are usually too shocked to worry about getting pictures or video. If it happened frequently enough, we would probably have more footage like the PGF.

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

Jumping 60 feet is not a freak incident that just happens. If it happens once, that means they can do such a thing.

One or two reports of Bigfoot doing something unique doesn't necesarily mean they're doing it. What if those several reports are hoaxes?

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile View Post
If the majority of bigfeet behave like Patty, then they should be easily filmed at virtually any time. If you can rent a camera and find one on your first time out, then they are not so fast, or stealthy.

Freak incidents in nature happen. One shouldn't cherry pick those as a way to discredit what happens 95% of the time.

I just noticed what part of my post your above response was answering.

Are you saying that they normally are super-seekret stealthy athletes, and that the one on the film, casually strolling, not apprehensive and definitely not stealthy, just happens to be that way by freak occurrence? Also, that no one else can film one today because these incidents don't usually happen?

Because if that is what you're saying, it makes absolutely no sense, surprise, surprise. Now the impossible coincidence of finding one on your first try with a camera becomes even more impossible, since you have to show up when the one slow bigfoot (of all the fast, stealthy ones in history) happens to be exactly where you are.

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

They're intelligent, paranoid and extremely stealthy, but not invisible. Clear and up close sightings are extremely rare and 99% of the time they happen inside a forest and don't allow for people to get any kind of good footage. It usually happens very quickly and witnesses with no experience are usually too shocked to worry about getting pictures or video. If it happened frequently enough, we would probably have more footage like the PGF.

One or two reports of Bigfoot doing something unique doesn't necesarily mean they're doing it. What if those several reports are hoaxes?

Then do you not see how the PGF does not jive with the statements in your first paragraph?

So now the 60 foot jumps are hoaxes? Why are they "Class A" reports, then? are the Nawackos not doing their job?

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

Roger and BobG came around a bend when they spotted Patty. She didn't walk out in front of them like most people think. She was also bending down at the creek so there was no way she could have heard them either.

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

So now the 60 foot jumps are hoaxes? Why are they "Class A" reports, then? are the Nawackos not doing their job?

Roger and BobG came around a bend when they spotted Patty. She didn't walk out in front of them like most people think. She was also bending down at the creek so there was no way she could have heard them either.

I don't know if they're hoaxes. The point is that we don't know.

So now we can sneak up on them? how come nobody else does? This is entirely ludicrous. You absolutely cannot say that R&B suprised a sasquaw, walking around with film equipment and whatnot. She then, of course, just moves along at a casual pace, turns around for a look, and goes on her merry way.

I say the reports and the film don't jive one bit. You are doing nothing to refute this.

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

Heironimus does the Patty walk so well that you'd swear it was him in the PGF. But his aging physique has changed his shape and his center-of-gravity, and possibly his gait - so that is a factor. He now has an old man's pot belly and any costume must accommodate that. Patty doesn't have a protruding belly, but then Heironimus didn't have one either back in 1967.

Morris obviously did not do a very good job with this costume. It doesn't even seem to be a determined replica, but rather something similar. He said that he had to create it on a short deadline right around Halloween which is his busiest season. The point being that he thinks he could have done better if he had more time.

The most striking difference is also an important one. This costume is red while Patty is black. Ok, so what, we can still see it as it is and imagine that it should be black? Well, it matters a lot because the red-colored fur shows contours, shadows and other details in different ways than black fur would. It creates differences of detail that are visible and distracting, so to speak. Red fur causes you to see too much and see too clearly as compared to black fur.

The Morris costume worn by Heironimus in your photo is a poor attempt at a recreation. It still counts as a recreation but we can also say that it could have been so much better. It's intellectually dishonest to say that the Patty costume cannot be recreated even in this day. I don't see why it couldn't be recreated to an acceptable degree. It shouldn't be expensive concerning the materials used but there would be considerable time spent on design, construction, alteration, testing, etc.

It's obvious that there is not much incentive for anyone to do it. "Hollywood" has created good Bigfoot costumes but they aren't intended to look like Patty.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

He had plagiarized the image in the past...so maybe that was the model for his movie costume

It makes sense that people are seeing Sasquatch that look exactly like Patty. It's to be expected. It's only ever an issue in the minds of people who desperately want to believe that there's no such thing.

Originally Posted by William Parcher

The most striking difference is also an important one. This costume is red while Patty is black. Ok, so what, we can still see it as it is and imagine that it should be black? Well, it matters a lot because the red-colored fur shows contours, shadows and other details in different ways than black fur would. It creates differences of detail that are visible and distracting, so to speak. Red fur causes you to see too much and see too clearly as compared to black fur.

Patty's color was actually brown and she really only appears black in the high quality copy of frame 352 that MK Davis got from Patricia Patterson.

If I was going to hoax a Bigfoot sighting I'd say that the Bigfoot looked very much like Patty. My fake report would be accepted and with an extra dash of credibility because it looked like Patty and Patty is real.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

It makes sense that people are seeing Sasquatch that look exactly like Patty. It's to be expected. It's only ever an issue in the minds of people who desperately want to believe that there's no such thing.

This is getting old as an argument. Nobody "desperately wants to believe" that footies don't exist. When a preposterous concept has nothing but anecdotes for evidence, it doesn't take much to figure out it doesn't exist.

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.